[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why Linux, Why Debian

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:30:45PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 16.02.2004 at 12:23:16 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +0100, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > > You seem to have missed my point, I did not said that our default install
> > > was less "secure" than OpenBSD's but more bloated. In fact, you have not
> Just a quick question, would you judge chargen as a potential DOS
> avenue, and/or a security risk for that reason?

No, chargen cannot form part of a DoS attack. Nothing which is
equivalent to or less effective than a UDP flood forms a meaningful
part of a DoS attack.

> > > demonstrated that this is not the case.
> > Because it wasn't the subject under discussion. You need to look up
> > "bloat" in a dictionary though, it doesn't mean "big".
> Bloat means to carry a lot of useless stuff along.

Wrong, completely and utterly. You also need to look up "bloat" in a

> And yes, the whole stack and heap protection stuff in OpenBSD should
> make it safer in general, no matter how much you want to claim that
> that's esotheric.

Anti-elephant powder.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: